User talk:Soccerguym/sandbox

Peer Review
I am reviewing Michael Abdelmessih's work (Soccerguym). The following is a link to his work (User:Soccerguym/sandbox)

In regards to a lead section, a "Need for Remediation", "Species reintroduction", "Sustainability", "Urban green space", "Causes of diversity change", "Methods", "Evolution", and "Effectiveness" sections already exist in Urban ecology. In order to more easily address template questions, I will answer them for each edited section in the order they appear in the sandbox. 1. Need for remediation: A concise and informative introductory sentence is included. The added paragraphs contain information that was previously lacking in the article in a neutral and informative way. However, several sentences within the first paragraph lack citations. Additionally, alternative approaches to remediation are mentioned, but not further elaborated or expanded on. 2. Green Infrastructure Implementation: A concise and informative introductory sentence is included. The information added is informative and presented in a neutral manner. However, the wording of the last sentence is somewhat confusing. 3. Increasing Wildlife Habitat Connectivity: The introductory sentence is concise and informative, but the use of "the two populations" is vague and could be better worded for broad use. Overall, more statements within this section would benefit from citations. Additionally, directly quoting sources goes against wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, the information is presented in a neutral manner throughout. 4. Roadkill Mitigation: the section begins with an informative introductory sentence. Information is well cited and presented without any apparent bias. A good addition to the article. 5. Cause of Diversity Change: The addition begins in a concise and informative manner. The information provided by the addition to this section is relevant and presented in a neutral manner. However, there is again an issue with direct quoting of sources. 6. Evolution: The addition begins with a concise an informative statement that is reflective of the concepts expanded by the remainder of the addition. Strong evidence is provided in a neutral manner, explained in sufficient but not excessive detail, and properly and sufficiently cited. Overall this is a very strong addition to the section. 7. Effectiveness: The addition begins with an informative introductory sentence. The author makes good use of examples to support claims, and presents findings in a fair and neutral manner. This would be a very strong section if not for the issue of direct citations clashing with wikipedia guidelines for using source materials.

Overall, the additions made to this article are neutral, relevant, and informative. The sources utilized span a variety of authors. Though a small portion may be considered fairly old or outdated, most of the articles cited were published within the last 5 years from a variety of reliable sources. There were a few recurring issues, mainly with using direct quotations, and in the layout of the sandbox article making it difficult for reviewers to easily disconcert exactly which sections were taken from the original article and which were additions made by the student. The article could best be improved by correcting concerns around direct quotations of source material.

Gjcrew (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)